Perhaps the placement of the bloody apron at the exact place it was left was meant to intimidate a specific person?

I mean if you want to drop off a bloody apron an hour after a murder, then a location 5 minutes away from the scene makes little sense or is hard to understand at the best of times.

The killer also had seemingly endless potential dump sites for the apron in the area.

Just got me wondering if there was someone in the building the killer wanted to scare or send a message to.

I mean, it could well be that the apron and graffiti have been terrible red herrings all these years -- the killer used the apron for some purpose and dumped it next to some graffiti. That's actually been my default assumption for years now.

But I think it's good to go back and look again and question...

I'm assuming the police probably checked out that property very thoroughly and spoke to residents there. So who was living there?

It could be just to unsettle the Jewish tenants there, but, I can imagine a killer getting his jollies dropping such an item at the doorstep of someone he had some personal direct beef against...

Perhaps the placement of the bloody apron at the exact place it was left was meant to intimidate a specific person?

I mean if you want to drop off a bloody apron an hour after a murder, then a location 5 minutes away from the scene makes little sense or is hard to understand at the best of times.

The killer also had seemingly endless potential dump sites for the apron in the area.

Just got me wondering if there was someone in the building the killer wanted to scare or send a message to.

I mean, it could well be that the apron and graffiti have been terrible red herrings all these years -- the killer used the apron for some purpose and dumped it next to some graffiti. That's actually been my default assumption for years now.

But I think it's good to go back and look again and question...

I'm assuming the police probably checked out that property very thoroughly and spoke to residents there. So who was living there?

It could be just to unsettle the Jewish tenants there, but, I can imagine a killer getting his jollies dropping such an item at the doorstep of someone he had some personal direct beef against...

Hi Charles,

What happens if you analyze the data from the perspective of the concept of "closeness"?

Was the apron close to the murder site?

Was the GSG close to the murder site?

Was the apron close to the GSG?

If some time passed between the murder and the visit in Goulston Street, how come you get the results you get from your analysis?

Hi,
Of course, there remains the possibility that JTR just threw the rag down anywhere without giving it a second thought about it being found or noticed.
Maybe he lived in Goulston Street and discarded it just before going in doors.

i quite like the theory that the bloody apron was left by Eddowes herself as she walked the streets looking for customers; similar cloths were used by women as sanitary pads and I don't think it's impossible to imagine her discarding it when it became totally soiled.

i quite like the theory that the bloody apron was left by Eddowes herself as she walked the streets looking for customers; similar cloths were used by women as sanitary pads and I don't think it's impossible to imagine her discarding it when it became totally soiled.

Hi Harriet, not even going into the long and convoluted debates about the size of apron or when it was cut.

Just pointing out the possible logistical issues involved.

We are told it is soiled, some blood(amount debatable) and wet, still wet leads one to assumes it is deposited fairly recently to time of discovery.

Eddowes is locked up from8.45 until 1am.

She is then seen heading towards Houndsditch.

To deposit the cloth herself, she needs to change direction, no problem there, and head toward Goulston street, she is probably not moving very fast, but we cannot be sure.

She gets to Goulston street and either discards the material/cloth/apron or she loses it.

She now has to find client, either on route back to Mitre Square, or at Mitre Square.

And all must occur before being killed at around 1.30-1.35am.

That seems a very tight time frame. of approx 30mins to go, drop, come back and pick up.

Some will will agree with you, on the possible use of the cloth, others not. Which ever way you go on the issue, good luck.

Hi Harriet, not even going into the long and convoluted debates about the size of apron or when it was cut.

Just pointing out the possible logistical issues involved.

We are told it is soiled, some blood(amount debatable) and wet, still wet leads one to assumes it is deposited fairly recently to time of discovery.

Eddowes is locked up from8.45 until 1am.

She is then seen heading towards Houndsditch.

To deposit the cloth herself, she needs to change direction, no problem there, and head toward Goulston street, she is probably not moving very fast, but we cannot be sure.

She gets to Goulston street and either discards the material/cloth/apron or she loses it.

She now has to find client, either on route back to Mitre Square, or at Mitre Square.

And all must occur before being killed at around 1.30-1.35am.

That seems a very tight time frame. of approx 30mins to go, drop, come back and pick up.

Some will will agree with you, on the possible use of the cloth, others not. Which ever way you go on the issue, good luck.

Steve

Let me add some more to your reply to Harriet

She could quite easily have been wearing a piece of apron as a sanitary device when she was arrested and locked up.

The wetness was never clarified, some will suggest it was wet due to the rain. But that is not conclusive, it could have been urine. It is a known fact that when drunken persons are locked up in police cells they fall asleep and become incontinent.So that could account for the wetness.

The piece was described as either being spotted with blood or smeared with blood, and traces of faecal matter were also present. All of those combined are what might be expected to be found on a piece of cloth used as a sanitary device, and consistent with being between the legs of a street prostitute in 1888.

It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that Eddowes did decide to make her way back to Flower and Dean street where she was living, which was not that far away from Goulston Street, so she would have every reason to be in that area.

If she did decide to go home, then she could have gone under the archway to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece, and then perhaps decided against going home and decided to go back to the Mitre Sq area thus meeting her killer.

For those who label me a one trick pony of this issue. Let me suggest another alternative to also consider. If she was intending to go home. and then met a punter en route and went under the archway to engage in some sexual activity, and at the conclusion used one of the two pieces in her possession to wipe herself, and then discarded the soiled piece.

For information I can tell you that out in the big wide world there are many people like Harriet who are of the same opinion as her on this issue.

She could quite easily have been wearing a piece of apron as a sanitary device when she was arrested and locked up.

The wetness was never clarified, some will suggest it was wet due to the rain. But that is not conclusive, it could have been urine. It is a known fact that when drunken persons are locked up in police cells they fall asleep and become incontinent.So that could account for the wetness.

The piece was described as either being spotted with blood or smeared with blood, and traces of faecal matter were also present. All of those combined are what might be expected to be found on a piece of cloth used as a sanitary device, and consistent with being between the legs of a street prostitute in 1888.

It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that Eddowes did decide to make her way back to Flower and Dean street where she was living, which was not that far away from Goulston Street, so she would have every reason to be in that area.

If she did decide to go home, then she could have gone under the archway to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece, and then perhaps decided against going home and decided to go back to the Mitre Sq area thus meeting her killer.

For those who label me a one trick pony of this issue. Let me suggest another alternative to also consider. If she was intending to go home. and then met a punter en route and went under the archway to engage in some sexual activity, and at the conclusion used one of the two pieces in her possession to wipe herself, and then discarded the soiled piece.

For information I can tell you that out in the big wide world there are many people like Harriet who are of the same opinion as her on this issue.

If you actually read what was posted you would see I did not rule out the possibility of her heading in the direction of Goulston street, upon her release.
I however did ask about the timing involved in proceeding back to Mitre Square for 1.30am, which you of course basically ignore,your only comment being

"and then perhaps decided against going home and decided to go back to the Mitre Sq area thus meeting her killer."

Yes maybe she did, who knows?

However there is no attempt by you to look at the timings involved, to see what is possible? and what is probable?

Go on there is plenty of data out there to help.

And then to make the possibility more improbable you, out of left field, suggest she may have stopped for a client before returning to Mitre Square,

Do you actually listen to yourself?

Actually if you read what Harriet said, it was she liked the idea no more, no less.

The wetness was never clarified, some will suggest it was wet due to the rain. But that is not conclusive, it could have been urine. It is a known fact that when drunken persons are locked up in police cells they fall asleep and become incontinent.So that could account for the wetness.

Trevor,

I note that you give many reasons why it could be said to have been wet; however I see no mention of blood being one such reason.

Given that several sources say this was the case, and indeed it was suggested as such by the coroner at the inquest was it not?